To the editor: I’ve read that some members — rank and file — of the Catholic Church are upset over their faith’s spending in advertisements against gay persons; including marriage and parental rights for them.

I find it ironic in light of the past revelations of child abuse, (in Ireland, the slavery and forced separation of teen moms and their children in drop-off convents,) and sex scandals — especially here in New Hampshire, where the heads of the Church were promoted, not prosecuted.

I left the church decades ago because they taught that persons should accept their responsibilities, yet encouraged single mothers to adopt out their children.

The church also rants about sexual promiscuity, but balks at birth prevention use and abortion when they are the obvious solutions to having the innocent suffer.

They also fight to roll back women’s rights in this and other countries, to the detriment of many women’s — and children’s — lives and health.

Now they seem to be on a crusade to stop homosexuals and others from having a life — even though most of them probably are not Catholic. The callous disregard of those who marry in circumstances where procreation is not possible or advisable is outrageous to me.

Please remember; priests, pastors, ministers, rabbis or clerics of any faith are allowed to obtain justice-of-the-peace status so they may officiate at legal, state-licensed marriage ceremonies. It is not the other way around.

Governments should be expected to cover mortal laws. Religious bodies in our country, at most, have the right to encourage their parishioners to vote -not whom to vote for. That opens them up to Internal Revenue Service scrutiny for violation of their non-taxable status. So many religious groups and prelates have flouted this — it’s as if they want to be seen “being persecuted for their faith” -- when in fact they are violating the law, and know it.

Diane M. Starkey

Rochester

Sworn In!

To the editor: On Wednesday, Dec. 7, Governor Lynch swore in the 2013-2014 legislators. Our first time. What an honor it was. We felt strongly, both the privilege and the responsibility of our new role. There is no denying that sitting in an impressive, historic hall with more than 400 other representatives and senators is an awesome and humbling experience.

We are learning very quickly the commitment that we volunteer legislators have made. Prior to our swearing in, we had already trekked to Concord on four different days. First there were the party caucuses at which we elected our leaders. Then there were the two days of orientation for all new members, featuring mock committee sessions, a mock legislative session, and a tremendous amount of information about how it all works and how we are expected to conduct ourselves. There was a good deal of discussion of what the people of New Hampshire expect of us. Finally, another day with fellow Democrats to gather and talk about what our priorities are for the biennium.

In about two weeks we will receive our committee assignments. Already we have learned the uniqueness of how New Hampshire does business. Every bill — EVERY bill, more than 1,000 of them each year — gets a public hearing before a committee. Committee deliberations and votes, just like full house discussions and votes, are done publicly. Interested parties encouraged to testify and to sit in and listen to all deliberations. As a matter of respect to our constituents, our state, and our colleagues, we are expected to dress in business attire when we are in committee and on session day. We anticipate that we will be in Concord three days a week, Tuesday — Thursday. For this we receive the handsome compensation of $100/year, toll-free driving in New Hampshire, and mileage reimbursement on the days we drive our personal cars to Concord.

Perhaps most encouraging of all, one message from leadership and our experienced colleagues was widespread and strongly voiced. That is that we are in the legislature to work together for the good of our State and the people of New Hampshire. That is the “middle ground” we intend to seek, the way we commit to seek solutions. We expect to experience both agreement and differences among ourselves and with our colleagues in both parties. Our intention is to find ways to build those differences into solutions that foster the common good, a common good we can all appreciate.

Jim Verschueren

Dover Ward 1, District 13

Bill Baber

Dover Ward 2, District 14

Greg Burdwood Steve Ketel

Dover Wards 5 & 6, Somersworth Ward 2, District 17

Fiscal cliff

To the editor: In judging what is happening in Washington with the so-called “fiscal cliff” there are two important factors that are being overlooked in the public debate.

The first is that the Bush tax cuts were passed solely on the basis that they to be “temporary”. We were told that they were a means of jump-starting the economy and creating new jobs by putting more money in the hands of those people who would invest in American business. It was the Republican version and vision of a “stimulus” package.

We now should be willing to concede that this approach has been a failure. It did not stimulate the economy; quite the opposite. We have gone through four-plus years of high unemployment, a falling business climate, and a growing national debt.

Yet it appears that many Republicans have forgotten the “temporary” and continue to insist — despite all evidence to the contrary — that we must have more of the same. Taxes should not be returned to the pre-Obama levels or, in fact, raised to any degree (the “pledge”).

Second, we need to acknowledge that President Obama did not create the present impasse. Congress created the legislation that got us to this point, largely because the Republican majority in the House refused, time and time again, to come to grips with the reality of our financial situation — the staggering cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increased governmental costs brought on by the unemployment crisis, an expanded homeland security program, demands of FEMA because of natural disasters, etc. — all in the face of reduced tax revenues.

All the indiscriminate budget cuts of “sequestration”, the potential increase in employment taxes, the uncertainty of budget planning at the state level — all of it — is the creature of Congress, not the President. Unfortunately, not every state had the same good sense as New Hampshire in getting rid of the Representatives who supported this approach, and the burden now falls on the Republican “leaders” in the House and Senate to deal with the problem They could start by admitting how they got there in the first place.